The steam link to the survey they sent me via email isn't working... I guess I might have missed my window? Unfortunate.

What should young people do with their lives today? Many things, obviously. But the most daring thing is to create stable communities in which the terrible disease of loneliness can be cured. -Kurt Vonnegut

1. The game still needs ALOT of work2. The game just seems slower than other games such as HoN and LoL (the movement speeds, cast animations, and attack speed seem slow. kinda like how in the original SC you could set the speed of the game to very fast or normal and in Dota2 its set to normal)3. Everyone is pretty nice so far compared to other game communities.4. No one I played was really great at the game, there doesn't appear to be many highly skilled players yet. I've gone around 10-0 each game when I usually don't do that well in these kinds of games.

big boss wrote:So i finally got my beta keys and just played some games tonight.

First Impressions:

1. The game still needs ALOT of work2. The game just seems slower than other games such as HoN and LoL (the movement speeds, cast animations, and attack speed seem slow. kinda like how in the original SC you could set the speed of the game to very fast or normal and in Dota2 its set to normal)3. Everyone is pretty nice so far compared to other game communities.4. No one I played was really great at the game, there doesn't appear to be many highly skilled players yet. I've gone around 10-0 each game when I usually don't do that well in these kinds of games.

1. Yeah...lots. 2. Have you played Dota 1? If so do you find it slower than dota 1? That has not been my experience. 3. Thats good. I hope you continue to have such luck, that has not been my experience so far. 4. All of the best players in the world have access, having just entered you are probably entering into games filled with quite new individuals. But the highly skilled player have been playing around with the game since a month before the International. Dotalicious has also opened up a mini-league inside dota 2 if ou are looking for higher quality games.

big boss wrote:So i finally got my beta keys and just played some games tonight.

First Impressions:

1. The game still needs ALOT of work2. The game just seems slower than other games such as HoN and LoL (the movement speeds, cast animations, and attack speed seem slow. kinda like how in the original SC you could set the speed of the game to very fast or normal and in Dota2 its set to normal)3. Everyone is pretty nice so far compared to other game communities.4. No one I played was really great at the game, there doesn't appear to be many highly skilled players yet. I've gone around 10-0 each game when I usually don't do that well in these kinds of games.

1. Yeah...lots. 2. Have you played Dota 1? If so do you find it slower than dota 1? That has not been my experience. 3. Thats good. I hope you continue to have such luck, that has not been my experience so far. 4. All of the best players in the world have access, having just entered you are probably entering into games filled with quite new individuals. But the highly skilled player have been playing around with the game since a month before the International. Dotalicious has also opened up a mini-league inside dota 2 if ou are looking for higher quality games.

2. Yea I played alot of dota 1, although I haven't played it since LoL became big so its been a while so maybe my memory is fuzzy.4. I know that some top tier players are playing it, but it appears that the average person (the ones I see at least even after having played ~25 games) is just bad. I haven't had a game where Ive seen someone that made me go "wow he's good".

big boss wrote:4. I know that some top tier players are playing it, but it appears that the average person (the ones I see at least even after having played ~25 games) is just bad. I haven't had a game where Ive seen someone that made me go "wow he's good".

They focused on trying to create buzz about the game by giving it out to lots of people who can assist them with marketing rather than trying to build a good community in the beta. A poor choice IMO and it let to lots of lower skilled players with these new waves of additions going up from the like 500 players to the thousands that are playing now.

I don't know if valve has said anything about this , but I think they are trying to reach out to people who might not have ever played a moba before with dota2 so they have a larger audience and thats why they are giving out beta keys to people with little experience with this type of game.

We had a discussion not long ago about alternatives to MOBA in the LoL thread, most of them seem too geared towards gamers. As a non-gamer, Multiplayer Online Battle Arena tells you exactly what it is, whereas Single Unit Real Time Strategy game is pretty much not true at all although it may be more informative to a gamer. The other option is to use "DotA clone" or "AoS clone" which I'm sure everyone would agree is quite silly.

Ninja'd by Wardaft: Agreed, and exactly my point.

Person A: What kind of game is it? A shooter? Strategy game?Person B: Oh it's an Aeon on Strife.Person A: Wahhhh?

Xeio wrote:Action RPG seems to fit best IMO (i.e. torchlight, or a better example I can't think of at the moment). I don't really see how it's at all RTS like...

It is a strategy game that is played in real time vs a strategy game that is turn based...

Ok, maybe I should have said: "I don't really see how it's at all strategy like...". Obviously it's real time.

Strategy is primarily about players making choices, re-planning based on enemy actions and movements, adapting your goals and actions based new information. This is a significant aspect of what Dota is; it requires strategy in hero picking/banning, choosing lanes, controlling the map, choosing when to push and how and where. When, how and where to fight. Dota is at its heart a strategy game.

While there is much more opportunity for tactical precision than many RTS games like SC or Myth that does not diminish the significance of good strategy in the game. Better strategy than your opponent is the primary reason why you win a game of dota. There is strong tactical gameplay but it is not the primary reason you win a game unlike primarily tactical games like most FPS's. Watch some of the recent Navi games as a example, focus on games where they were losing (say Monkey vs Navi in ESWC). Take note on how they are out played tactically, they adapt their strategy and win.

Here is a link to an article a friend of mine posted about what to call the genre.

If you really want a genre acronym for it that gamers will like and non gamers get the gist from, the best you can probably do is RPS - Role Playing Strategy (not Rock Paper Scissors.) It is, after all, a direct hybrid between a role playing game (you control one hero who you level up and get items for) and strategy (armies attacking each other's bases in a mirrored layout.)

But I still prefer AoS, both for historical reasons, and because strife is a cool word.

MOBA is really not descriptive, because 'arena' usually implies some sort death match with few to no other complications (which is not true), having both multiplayer and online in the name (with respect to PC gaming at least) is redundant, and battle... well what else are you going to do in an arena game, have a political debate?

I still think RPG fits better than RTS. Being an RPG doesn't preclude strategic elements to play. But I always think of controlling armies, not a single unit, when thinking "strategy", woo conditioning.

But then, there's something to be said of trying to define game genres by their gameplay elements. I think there's a topic where we went round in circles for a while there, especially since games nowadays pretty much never stick exclusively to one "genre".

Any competitive game EVER has strategy involved, but I feel the genre leans more towards the FPS side where having what we LoL'ers like to call good mechanics (reflex, precision) will get you much further than good strategy, as opposed to a game like Starcraft which is the opposite.

rigwarl wrote:Any competitive game EVER has strategy involved, but I feel the genre leans more towards the FPS side where having what we LoL'ers like to call good mechanics (reflex, precision) will get you much further than good strategy, as opposed to a game like Starcraft which is the opposite.

rigwarl wrote:Any competitive game EVER has strategy involved, but I feel the genre leans more towards the FPS side where having what we LoL'ers like to call good mechanics (reflex, precision) will get you much further than good strategy, as opposed to a game like Starcraft which is the opposite.

Given the level of ridiculous micro necessary to play at a competitive level in Starcraft, I'm not certain that's the best example of a game which doesn't require manual dexterity. Most people tend to regard executing a string of commands at a rate of 5 per second to be somewhat difficult.

rigwarl wrote:Any competitive game EVER has strategy involved, but I feel the genre leans more towards the FPS side where having what we LoL'ers like to call good mechanics (reflex, precision) will get you much further than good strategy, as opposed to a game like Starcraft which is the opposite.

to add another response to this. LoL is a game with significantly less strategy than dota. It is also a game that claims to be or is known for being an 'casual dota' and while the accessibility is much higher (as dota is probably the least accessible game ever), the barrier to entry for the player once you have the game is significantly greater.

I don't think I've ever done any roleplaying at all (or seen anyone else do any) in a DotA type game, ergo any acronym including 'RPG' just seems completely inaccurate to me. You could go for a variant of RTT (RealTime Tactics)?

rigwarl wrote:Any competitive game EVER has strategy involved, but I feel the genre leans more towards the FPS side where having what we LoL'ers like to call good mechanics (reflex, precision) will get you much further than good strategy, as opposed to a game like Starcraft which is the opposite.

Given the level of ridiculous micro necessary to play at a competitive level in Starcraft, I'm not certain that's the best example of a game which doesn't require manual dexterity. Most people tend to regard executing a string of commands at a rate of 5 per second to be somewhat difficult.

Agreed. A half sized army could beat an army of double its size (with the same unit composition) in starcraft given that the underdog player has much better micro.

Zcorp wrote:

rigwarl wrote:Any competitive game EVER has strategy involved, but I feel the genre leans more towards the FPS side where having what we LoL'ers like to call good mechanics (reflex, precision) will get you much further than good strategy, as opposed to a game like Starcraft which is the opposite.

to add another response to this. LoL is a game with significantly less strategy than dota. It is also a game that claims to be or is known for being an 'casual dota' and while the accessibility is much higher (as dota is probably the least accessible game ever), the barrier to entry for the player once you have the game is significantly greater.

.

I think LoL has comparable strategy to dota seeing as 1 hero in LoL cannot wreck an entire team without the support of the rest of his team. LoL is more of a team based game, yes Dota is very team based as well but its possible for one hero to completely own everyone else.

big boss wrote:I think LoL has comparable strategy to dota seeing as 1 hero in LoL cannot wreck an entire team without the support of the rest of his team. LoL is more of a team based game, yes Dota is very team based as well but its possible for one hero to completely own everyone else.

big boss wrote:I think LoL has comparable strategy to dota seeing as 1 hero in LoL cannot wreck an entire team without the support of the rest of his team. LoL is more of a team based game, yes Dota is very team based as well but its possible for one hero to completely own everyone else.

You clearly have never played, or understood, competitive Dota.

I have and do understand it so don't jump to conclusions based upon 2 sentences of evidence and be condescending on top of it. While I'm not good enough to play competitively (I have terrible micro) I have some friends who play in tourneys so I'm well versed. I'm just talking about pub games (which is how the majority of games are played...), a good person can just own the other team even if numbers aren't on his side.

What is with the elitist attitude on these boards with your non-so-subtle insults? I didn't play DotA as much, but I played on a pro HoN team (a very similar game, first page on Google for HoN if you've never heard of it) with players that played for MYM (first page for MYM in Google if you don't know who they are)- I'd say I have more competitive "DotA" experience than 99.99% of people who have played the game on a daily basis. See how stupid the parentheticals sound? Now, can we forget the condescending attitudes since they don't add anything to the discussion?

I admit Starcraft was a bad example, however a better example would be that a top LoL team would be a favorite to win over a team of ~top 3% level DotA players in a game of DotA-and vice versa- after a few hours to practice only amongst themselves (to learn the controls but nothing of strategy), since they would have significantly better mechanics despite not knowing basic strategies.

Also, it's no coincidence that every single player on Navi- and every other pro team- has can last hit better than 99% of DotA players.

rigwarl wrote:What is with the elitist attitude on these boards with your non-so-subtle insults? I didn't play DotA as much, but I played on a pro HoN team (a very similar game, first page on Google for HoN if you've never heard of it) with players that played for MYM (first page for MYM in Google if you don't know who they are)- I'd say I have more competitive "DotA" experience than 99.99% of people who have played the game on a daily basis. See how stupid the parentheticals sound? Now, can we forget the condescending attitudes since they don't add anything to the discussion?

It is difficult to respond to absurd statements, without taking a significant amount of time and effort to try and explain why they are incorrect. Do to it's absurdity it becomes quite easy to jump to the conclusion that the author does not know what they are talking about.

The attitude isn't one of elitism but a disinterest in trying to fight through confirmation bias.

Trying to explain to you why strategy is more important in dota than tactics (and I agree it is less so in LoL), I would have to go thought lots of games to provide evidence. Make sure you understand the distinction between tactics and strategy, and understand the depth of strategy that is available in dota. I've already provided you information to find a game that you can easily google to find. If you have dota 2 you can even find it and download it.

Than big boss uses a non-sequitur to reach his conclusion. Having to teach him logic to engage him in discussion is not an insignificant task.

When you start with entirely absurd premises rarely will you create discussion that doesn't look at you like you are absurd.

Sigh, still with the condescension I see. Nothing I have said is even remotely absurd as, well, pretty much everything you have said. By your logic, there's no reason I should respond to your post, unless you define "absurd" as "anything Zcorp doesn't agree with".

First off, using a widely accepted dictionary:

strat·e·gy/ˈstratəjē/Noun: 1. A plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.

Yea... sorry those are sooooooo different. Let's see what you define as strategy earlier in this thread:

Zcorp wrote:Strategy is primarily about players making choices, re-planning based on enemy actions and movements, adapting your goals and actions based new information. This is a significant aspect of what Dota is; it requires strategy in hero picking/banning, choosing lanes, controlling the map, choosing when to push and how and where. When, how and where to fight. Dota is at its heart a strategy game.

5 Navi players can pick/ban completely randomly, pick lanes completely randomly, and not control the map by NEVER ganking and only fighting within their lanes and they would beat a team of DotA players at the ~top 5% level. Furthermore, note that the reverse of the above situation is not true. Therefore, I'm inclined to say mechanics are more crucial than strategy and tactics combined, for whatever definitions you have made up for the latter two and failed to include- unless you also call "right clicking on a creep when it has low HP" a "strategy or tactic".

rigwarl wrote:5 Navi players can pick/ban completely randomly, pick lanes completely randomly, and not control the map by NEVER ganking and only fighting within their lanes and they would beat a team of DotA players at the ~top 5% level. Furthermore, note that the reverse of the above situation is not true. Therefore, I'm inclined to say mechanics are more crucial than strategy and tactics combined, for whatever definitions you have made up for the latter two and failed to include- unless you also call "right clicking on a creep when it has low HP" a "strategy or tactic".

So your argument is that the best players in world in any game can easily random other players? So because a team of NFL players can reliably beat every group of players that does not play in the NFL football requires little strategy to win? Or that it is not the most important aspect of how the game is played between NFL teams?

And no in the above example you are not correct. If Navi randomly picked, randomly assigned lanes, never changed lanes, never adapted their plan beyond: go to your lane and try stay in it and try to push to base. I strongly believe the significant majority of experienced (say the top 15-25% of players) dota teams would beat them consistently. They would get slaughtered by other pro teams. This argument of yours is not absurd because I disagree with it, rather it is absurd because it is so unreasonable. Meaning it greatly lacks any ringing of truth.

Navi is amazing, but their ability over other teams is not generally being tactically superior but having a better understanding of the games strategy. They don't frequently out play other teams tactically, they consistently out play other teams strategically. They are of course great tacticians being that they are pro players, but that is not why they beat other pro teams. I'll again refer you to this game as an example.

Zcorp wrote:So your argument is that the best players in world in any game can easily random other players? So because a team of NFL players can reliably beat every group of players that does not play in the NFL football requires little strategy to win? Or that it is not the most important aspect of how the game is played between NFL teams?

When did I say the game required little strategy? I simply said mechanics (or in this example, athleticism) are more important than strategy, and if you don't believe that being athletic is more important than being a great strategist for an aspiring NFL player, then you're free to believe that. I suspect over 90% of NFL players would say you're wrong.

You have not given any reasons of why you think anything I said is unreasonable. I find your assertion that ~top15% level players can beat Navi assuming Navi plays AR and doesn't gank to be very disrespectful to them. Disrespectful means you don't respect them (in case it wasn't obvious, this was making fun of how condescending you are- you really don't have to define common words for me, thanks).

Sometimes we like to fool around and do something like all 5 pick Intelligence heroes and build only boots + Burizas the entire game- it is EXTREMELY TRIVIAL to have positive winrate vs a team of 5 ~top3%* level players doing such strategies, simply because we will outfarm them, outharass them, outjuke them- hell, it doesn't even affect us THAT much for the first few levels (If you make it worth my while I have no qualms proving it to you on the DotA2 beta client- I will make it worth yours as well if you truly believe that what I just said isn't true). Yes, we will lose to equally skilled players doing such a silly strategy; I really thought this was obvious and didn't think it needed explicit mention, but apparently I was wrong. I also apparently need to mention that there's no need to link the same game 3 times on 1 page.

*I'm using HoN's ladder to estimate this, I assume it should be fair, let me know if otherwise.

rigwarl wrote:When did I say the game required little strategy? I simply said mechanics (or in this example, athleticism) are more important than strategy, and if you don't believe that being athletic is more important than being a great strategist for an aspiring NFL player, then you're free to believe that. I suspect over 90% of NFL players would say you're wrong.

So your argument is that because games require being adept at the basics of the game to do well, the game is defined by those basics and not by anything else? At which point I'll ask, is there any game that does not require you to be adept at its basics to do well?

*I'm using HoN's ladder to estimate this, I assume it should be fair, let me know if otherwise.

I don't know, I don't know HoN. I hear that S2 has done a terrible job balancing the game as well as growing and adapting its meta-game, but that is from my friends who play it. I have not played it since it came out.

How about we agree that strategy is more important than Rigwarl thinks, and less important than zcrop thinks.

As to whether dota is strategic enough to warrant having "strategy" as part of it's genre name, I'd say no. It's clearly more of an arena game than a strategy game, and clearly more of an action game than a strategy game. IMO.

rigwarl wrote:When did I say the game required little strategy? I simply said mechanics (or in this example, athleticism) are more important than strategy, and if you don't believe that being athletic is more important than being a great strategist for an aspiring NFL player, then you're free to believe that. I suspect over 90% of NFL players would say you're wrong.

So your argument is that because games require being adept at the basics of the game to do well, the game is defined by those basics and not by anything else? At which point I'll ask, is there any game that does not require you to be adept at its basics to do well?

Adam H wrote:How about we agree that strategy is more important than Rigwarl thinks, and less important than zcrop thinks.

As to whether dota is strategic enough to warrant having "strategy" as part of it's genre name, I'd say no. It's clearly more of an arena game than a strategy game, and clearly more of an action game than a strategy game. IMO.

Define an 'arena' game. The core element of it is that players are good at 'arenaing?'

rigwarl wrote:So to answer your two questions: no, and no. So your argument is that Navi is a bad team?

Then explain to me your argument. You believe that tactics are more important to succeeding in the game than strategy correct? That as such the game should not be described as an RTS, Correct?

You've made no argument for that opinion. I've provided you an example that clearly shows this to be false. Generally a team can be beaten tactically in dota and yet through superior strategy win. This is generally not true of the FPS genre, where strategy is significantly less important to victory. Can you provide any examples, besides an argument that being adept at the basics of a game is important, to demonstrate otherwise?